Best Sounding Edison Diamond Disc Machine

[larryh]

I tend to agree with Uncle Vanya on many points. The 250 horn in my listening has been the most impressive for overall response. Currently I have three machines with the 250 horn.. The Chippendale, the William and Mary Console I use for my videos and a Jacobean. I would say they are pretty close to the same sound dependent on where your listening from. Contrary to Vanya I find the console to be most satisfactory for sitting and enjoying the music. When I sit out front of the uprights I find that the should is much better when I stand up, meaning its strongest pattern from the horn is going over your head when seated. I have over and over found that to be the case. The console is lower thus moving the sound closer to your ears and not as noticeably when raising up. Steven M also thinks the cabinet being wider may effect somewhat the overall results of the sound as well. That may be. I know its widely disputed here but I have not found the Edisonics to be superior in sound either. I know the horn is longer but the opening is much smaller than the 250 which seems to be the problem. As was pointed out early on everyone seems to get a different effect from the machines. I know when I got back into the edison collecting a while back the machine I first obtained was a London model. Compared to a 150 is was much less impressive and when I went again to the 250 horns the same effect was apparent. Its one reason I never liked the amberolas, the tiny horn just doesn't cut it to me.

Larry

[edisonphonoworks]

I have a c-19,LC-38, and A-150. The C-19 sounds the best of them, but the other two have there merits, the A-150 has very nice vocal clarity, I think some horn parts are brass, and put together like a cygnet horn, in comparison with the C-19 where horn parts are tinned steel, though I do fine my C-19 the one I listen to most, it is oak. I rebuilt the reproducer,the one in my C-19 has new gaskets, but all else is original. The LC-38 does have a nice warm sound to it, but lower in volume, more of a background machine. (with the same reproducer from my c-19.)

[fran604g]

It would seem that, so far, the Chippendale is a preferred favorite.

I would like to see some actual RTA (Real-time Analyzer) measurements done with various setups in a controlled (for repeatability) environment. I'm sure the results would be very interesting.

I would be very surprised that, after decade upon decade of discussion, someone hasn't done at least a rudimentary study of this kind.

1) Do any of you know of such a study? If so, I'd love to be pointed in the right direction.

2) I assume that a particular "test" record would be difficult to decide upon; any suggestions?

I could probably try a simple RTA app on my Android. I'm not very confident of the mic's accuracy, but it would seem that the necessary bandwidth wouldn't need to be very great; maybe 500-5000Hz +/- 6dB?

A discretionary note: I don't for a second believe that empirical data equates to what we perceive as "good sounding" either. There are just too many variables involved in each person's listening environment.

Fran

[CarlosV]

It would seem that, so far, the Chippendale is a preferred favorite.

I would like to see some actual RTA (Real-time Analyzer) measurements done with various setups in a controlled (for repeatability) environment. I'm sure the results would be very interesting.

I would be very surprised that, after decade upon decade of discussion, someone hasn't done at least a rudimentary study of this kind.

1) Do any of you know of such a study? If so, I'd love to be pointed in the right direction.

2) I assume that a particular "test" record would be difficult to decide upon; any suggestions?


Fran

To properly undertake such test you need identical aural environments, i.e., the various phonographs need to be placed at the same position in the room, which makes such test a little difficult to do at home. I agree with you that the empirical comparisons are of little value, in most cases the extraneous factors to the objects being compared bias the judgment. As an example, nobody mentioned it so far, but I have one Edison A&N that sounds better than any other I have, including the Schubert, but since I keep the A&N on the floor and in a corner of the room, I am sure that its location is already a big contributor for its apparent better sound than the Schubert which is in the middle of the room.

[fran604g]

It would seem that, so far, the Chippendale is a preferred favorite.

I would like to see some actual RTA (Real-time Analyzer) measurements done with various setups in a controlled (for repeatability) environment. I'm sure the results would be very interesting.

I would be very surprised that, after decade upon decade of discussion, someone hasn't done at least a rudimentary study of this kind.

1) Do any of you know of such a study? If so, I'd love to be pointed in the right direction.

2) I assume that a particular "test" record would be difficult to decide upon; any suggestions?


Fran

To properly undertake such test you need identical aural environments, i.e., the various phonographs need to be placed at the same position in the room, which makes such test a little difficult to do at home. I agree with you that the empirical comparisons are of little value, in most cases the extraneous factors to the objects being compared bias the judgment. As an example, nobody mentioned it so far, but I have one Edison A&N that sounds better than any other I have, including the Schubert, but since I keep the A&N on the floor and in a corner of the room, I am sure that its location is already a big contributor for its apparent better sound than the Schubert which is in the middle of the room.

That's really interesting, Carlos. I can understand how the floor might become an acoustic "reflector", and especially in a corner as yours is located, it should(?) also augment the lower frequencies, whereas, I'm sure there would some loss from the Schubert being suspended above the floor.

Similarly, this is the very reason that I have my AR3a's positioned on the floor (oriented with the woofers down) as opposed to being placed upon the factory suggested angled stands; to my ears, the bass seems to become better extended. When sitting in a chair, I've found the placement to be preferable, and well balanced sounding.

Fran

Fran

[billybob62]

Let this add some fuel on the fire:
Has anyone ever "treated" his horn(s) with a plastic or other paint, tar or spray (heresy, I know) and found that it improved sound volume or sound quality by, perhaps, creating a smoother exit of the sound from the reproducer?
This is meant seriously and not meant to be the raving of an idiot.

[fran604g]

I know of people that have treated metal multi-cellular horns used on the VOTT systems (Altec 811B and other HF horns) with tar to "deaden" their "ringing" from their inherant resonance. They claim better results.

Fran

[edisonphonoworks]

Hmm test them in an anechoic chamber, with a microphone such as earthworks, or B&K into a spectrum Analyzer. http://realtraps.com/art_microphones.htm I have acoustically recorded up to about 7,000 cps on the Edison system, and the lower end about 75 cps.

[marcapra]

In defense of the Edisonic machines, I find the sound that comes from my Beethoven is superb. Although I would admit that the sound that comes out of my C250 Chippendale is also superb using the same Edisonic reproducer. The horn is placed low on the Edisonic machines making a seated position the best way to listen to them. The nice thing about the Chippendale is that the big horn is just the right height for seated or standing listeners. I've said this before, but just to repeat: When I had a new hardwood floor installed in my dining room and living room, all the furniture and the old carpeting were removed. So I put my Chippendale at one end of these two rooms, about 50 feet. So that was about 50 feet of nothing but hardwood floors and walls and the sound was the most amazing that I've ever heard from an acoustic phonograph!!! Putting the furniture back in and a rug deadened much of that amazing sound unfortunately. Only one person mentioned the sound of the Edison C-2 radio/phonograph. I've only heard a C-2 once at the CAPS show in Buena Park, CA. Luckily, I will be acquiring one this spring at the Stanton auction, so I can report on its virtues then.

[fran604g]

Hmm test them in an anechoic chamber, with a microphone such as earthworks, or B&K into a spectrum Analyzer. http://realtraps.com/art_microphones.htm I have acoustically recorded up to about 7,000 cps on the Edison system, and the lower end about 75 cps.

An anechoic chamber, carefully placed mic, processor, and analyzer would obviously provide scientifically accurate and indisputable data, certainly.

Is there someone in the community capable of supplying/providing such an environment?

The best I could ever do personally is scrape and save for the electronics necessary, and then use a small dead room in my home to conduct the tests.

Definitely NOT the sort of environment that would yield irrefutable results, but perhaps "good enough" for practical purposes?

Fran